Are New Skis Better or Just Different?

[immikerowley]

Reading @Than_Bogan thread on less options being better got me thinking.

 

and Than I think I agree simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, if a single whip is actually possible to be designed to suit all riders and their respective styles I don't know.

 

Disclaimer, I'm no way qualified to make any meaningful judgement or opinion on the matter but it did make me think...

 

At risk of a Panda, are the new skis every year that much better? or are they as good as previous years but with handling and ride characteristics changing as a result of the design, bevel, rocker etc.

 

What I mean is hypothetically as an example maybe the design of the 2020 Vapor Pro suited my style perfectly, but changes for '21 don't necessarily make the ski better for me if the design changes the way the skid rides , but it may be better suited to someone with a different style and need.

 

For me in fact it might be less suited than the previous version. But ultimately their customer base can grow as new skiers are better suited can now demo and for them hopefully move across.

 

( this obviously ignores manufacture material and process and is just taking design into account)

 

 

As I said I'm no where qualified to make the assumption so I'm more assign fro general inputs and thoughts on this?

 

[skiboyny]

It seems like there is only so much you can do to a slalom ski. The makers put new models out every year, but how many of them have made an actual performance gain? We have all heard about the different shapes, bevels, flexs, seems like it's all been done. Still the promise of a ski that "fits your style" better keeps us buying and trying. I feel like switching to carbon fiber was the first real innovation that increased performance. Everything after seems marginal.

[ALPJr]

I guess a ‘72 Maverick is as good as any car these days.

[Chef23]

If your ski is say more than 5 years old I think there is a big difference. If you bought a new ski last year I don’t think there are massive gains buying this year.

[immikerowley]

Chef agree, my suggestion is new materials aside a new ski from any stable in any year may not perform that much "better" as opposed to differently base don the shape etc. Whose to say what is better as we all look for different features/ attributes.

 

I say this as a sample of 1.

[quinne]

I am your typical 'crazy about water skiing but not very good at it' person. However, changing from my '94 Connelly Concept to a Radar Lyric a few years ago could be equated to the scene in Wizard of Oz when it goes from black and white to color. It transformed my experience and level of enjoyment. Last year I moved to the Graphite Lyric and that took the fun factor one level higher.

 

At this point, thanks to better equipment (boat included), advice from more advanced skiers, and practice every weekend my skiing is improving pretty rapidly. And I'm having a ton of fun. My ski-sters (two sisters + childhood friend) have all upgraded equipment and are experiencing the same. I need to update my profile pic. We laugh now at us standing there holding our old college skis!

[ejj]

I’d say the sporting goods market has really benefited from trickle-down material-science advancements from the aerospace and military industry. We have access to materials now that allow designers to specify flex and twist independently, etc. My guess is that shape and bevel are the major differences between skis now. So—is this year’s ski way better than last year’s? No. But there is no comparison to a 10 year-old design.

 

I’m no ski designer—but I have experience in the alpine and bike world—where material progression has slowed down in the past few years.

[MDB1056]

@immikerowley - good thread. thanks for starting it.

 

@ALPJr - No. 72 Maverick of course is not as good, but cars are made of thousands of parts, and have engines, systems, technology galore. All sorts of things that do change over time so really not a fair comparison. A slalom ski is a single item (fin aside), no moving parts, no systems, onboard computers, etc, etc. I agree 100% with the premise of this thread as it's been bugging me as well as to what really changes on skis year over year. Point made above that materials yes have changed in the past 10 yrs. OK, so that playing field is now also level. But seriously what is left to do that hasn't been done?. There are no new angles or measurements or combinations that are not known. Rockers (2,3,4 stage), bevels, flex, angles, concave volumes, ratios, thickness, taper, etc, etc, etc. It's all known. Connelly's new DV8 almost helps validate this as they're basically saying yes the rest of the ski is all good, were just now allowing different bolt on tail pieces to change performance. Others like HO are also maybe hinting that true design changes are at the wall as we're now promoting skis with green materials. Seriously? OK so now everyone's skis are all light as a feather, super strong, have teams proving they can all be run into 41,43. So are we the point where we're trying to fine tune light speed, meaning there are no more appreciable gains that can be made? Is there really any new undiscovered magic?

 

The goal here isn't to be critical, but rather just do a reality check. It's got to be really tough to be in the ski business and try to come out with new stuff each year, at least for high end skis. It's like fashion isn't it? There's nothing really new that hasn't been done to a shirt, or a pair of pants. I give all the companies a ton of credit for doing all they can to keep the lights on each year in our small industry, and years like this with COVID hurt even more for tournaments and events of all types. Guys like the Adam's (Cord / Caldwell) are examples or pure passion at it's best, but certainly aren't in it for the money, but I'd venture to guess even they would agree there is no new real magic to be discovered in slalom design.

 

Maybe the next generation will have high tech ski's, with self adjusting fins, tiny energy cells for acceleration, auto turning initiators that turn the ski based on proximity to the buoy etc. But then we're out of it being a sport and made it more of just a ride.

 

Bottom line, things with few or no moving parts are really hard to change year over year. Much easier to have the 72 Maverick upgrade job. I'm sure I'll get flamed by many in here for this, oh well. Again not trying to be critical, just a reality check. As @Horton has said, "it's just an online forum, it's not your life".

[BraceMaker]

@MDB1056 - the greener materials is a cool direction. particularly for those people who have to make these things.

[Kwoody51]

Let's hope we don't get into a case of it only being BNG each year:)

 

BNG = bold, new, graphics!

 

This is one of the favorite terms in reviews when nothing changes from one year to the next other than new, updated graphics! Seems common in motorcycle or boat reviews where they may not update much yearly.

[Than_Bogan]

@Chef23 nailed it. Incremental improvements are small, but over a few years they add up.

[Horton]

Gosh I have failed to educate my readers.

 

The idea that all the possible shapes and rockers is already known is preposterous. There are only 7 or 8 (+/-) elite ski designers on earth. Each of them is working year round to refine their ski and make it better than the next guys ski. The smallest things make huge differences.

 

Lets use Connelly as an example. The F1, Prophecy, GT, GTR and now the DV8 are all almost the same "shape". The dimensional differences are only the steps in the tunnel and the sidewall heights. That would seem to prove @immikerowley's original premise except that these 5 skis all perform differently.

 

The significant materials change was for the second gen Prophecy (PCV core). That ski was WAY better than the first gen Prophecy (PU core).

 

The next iteration was the GT. It sold well and some skiers loved it. I did not. It skied nothing like the Prophecy. The changes in sidewall height as well as flex and rocker changes made the ski do all sorts of things that hurt my ball count.

 

Then came the GTR. The sidewall height and the flex were again tweaked. This ski was not a personal favorite but I ran 38 off on both the 67 and 68 versions. It is a solid ski for me and clearly better than the GT.

 

This year we get the DV8. The "new cool" feature is the tail. I think the tail idea is valid but it is not the best thing about the ski. The new flex pattern makes the new ski WAY better than the GTR. The DV8 is easier to ride and flows better than previous Connellys. I think it is the best ski from Connelly in the modern era.

 

So Connelly has chosen for whatever reason to only tweak on a few parameters but the skis perform differently.

 

Go to the other end of the spectrum and look at the Denali. It is dimensionally NOTHING like any other ski on the market and it performs nothing like any other ski on the market. The design methodology is complete different and the way the ski works is completely unique.

 

Look at HO. Those guys produce clean sheet of paper high end skis every few years. They are doing everything they can to make the best ski they can. No one trys more stuff then HO.

 

In short tiny things matter. Every detail matters. Each ski designer is trying to make a ski better than his competitors. I am not saying every new ski is better than the previous but the designers are busting their asses trying .

[escmanaze]

All I know is my move from a 99 KD6500 to a 2012 Senate was a BIG DEAL. Then my move again from my 2012 Senate to my 2018 Senate Lithium was once again a BIG DEAL.

 

I would be curious to know what my buoy count would be if I was still on that KD 6500 right now. I have to initially suppose that it wouldn't be nearly as good.

 

[Horton]

@escmanaze please shoot video if you go back to the KD

[BobF]

I'll add that the last few skis that I bought seem to be incrementally easier to set up. My latest skied great at factory settings out of the box, and any adjustments I make have predictable results. Compare that to my all time favorite throwing ski (kd7000), and either skis are getting better, or we all are.

[rogerw]

one name - Andy Mapple.

What were his records and what id he ski on getting them?

[ballsohard]

Some skis definitely will stylistically mesh super well with a skiers style and preferences. Regardless eventually a big leap in design will happen and upgrading will be a necessity.

 

The example that comes to mind is @The_MS and his love for the HO Monza back in the day that caused him to hang on to using that model waaaaaay longer than most skiers did.

[RGilmore]

Maybe some simple math could help paint the "new ski design vs. BNG dilemma" in a different light.

 

Suppose there are six different ski design aspects that significantly affect how a ski will perform - for example, Bevels, Rocker, Perimeter (shape), Wrap material, Core material, and Tunnel configuration. Further assume each aspect has six distinctly different forms - for example, Flat bottom, partial concave Tunnel, full-concave Tunnel, concave-with-rails Tunnel, variable-width Tunnel, and V-stepped Tunnel. So for this thought experiment there are only six design aspects to consider, and each aspect has only six possible configurations The total number of possible iterations of your new ski would be 6! (six factorial), which is 6x5x4x3x2, which equals 720.

 

So there would be 720 different possible forms of your new ski - IF there were only six design aspects to consider. In reality, there are many more to consider, AND there are all kinds of hybrid forms of each aspect. There literally is not enough time in one ski designer's entire lifetime to try every combination possible, which means there may very well be MANY design changes yet to come in the impossible quest to find the "perfect" ski.

 

See, I told you the math would be simple.

[wawaskr]

I noticed today at nationals that 2 of the top M5 skiers were on 2014 vintage (+/-) Goode Nano One XT’s (white stripe version)....interesting wrench in the 5 yr old ski discussion...

[slow]

Skied my original Sixam recently. Was surprised how good it felt. Would be curious to ski it with new materials that don’t break down as fast, with the same initial feel.

[Adam Caldwell]

In my mind, there is a tremendous amount of work left on ski design across the board.

 

The challenge with designing is getting lost in the opinions of too many people when trying to sort out a change, OR on the flip side - not getting enough feedback on a particular technology/change. You can get lost in a hurry as not only are you dealing with changes in ski performance, but differences is everyone's bindings, ability, boat, water temp, driver, etc.. The list goes on and on.

[Ed_Johnson]

@adamcaldwell....I can testify that You and Cord absolutely advanced technology in developing the C75. Hands down the best ski I have ever been on. Just does everything well with NO bad habits.

 

I normally buy a new ski every year after testing 3 or 4. I was also very worried about being 6'4"@220 on a 65" ski. Sounded insane to me. However, best decision I ever made. The technical aspect of my skiing has advanced significantly since this ski has allowed me to try new techniques that other skis would have put me in the Lake.

 

Thank you for all the hard work and technical advice. Skiing is a lot more fun again.

 

 

[Fast351]

Are newer skis more for course skiers, or would free skiers running 15 off at 32 MPH notice a difference? FWIW I'm on a 2014 Radar Senate Graphite.

 

My Radar Profile boots are starting to tear their shells, and I think I'm going to switch to the new Pulse boots. I like a little ankle support, and the closed toe is nice for cold Minnesota water in the spring and fall. I'm considering upgrading the ski at the same time but trying to decide if it's worth the extra dough.

 

[pregom]

I would argue that the more advanced the skier, the more noticeable ski differences are. If that's true, do you think that for someone like me who still struggles to complete a full pass 15 off @26-28 mph would do better with a ski newer than my current 2012 Senate Alloy? My answer is no, save the money and keep working on what rides on top of the ski.

[Horton]

@pregom very likely you would ski better on a lithium or probuild Senate

[MDB1056]

@pregom - I'd agree with you. You would likely ski much better with some good coaching first . Spend you money there first. Then maybe consider a new stick.

[ozski]

Nate ran -41 on my 1997 ski just for fun.

[BraceMaker]

@pregom I'm not sure - the strange duality in the sport is some incredible skiers cannot be bothered to mess with their skis at all and will ski on basically anything and some amateur skiers will gain more than a pass on a brand new ski. If I were trying to get 26mph I would buy whatever ski made it happen easy maybe even a butter knife. Then I'd be prepared to do lessons and upgrade as needed. Until you find a ski that makes a pass brainless over and over you are on the wrong ski for your level.

[Keith_Menard]

@Horton if you listen carefully you can hear @pregom bank account getting lighter after your post.

 

Truly I think the thing that holds back 26mph skiers is the wake more than the ski....unless you are skiing behind a new ski boat with micro tuners (I kid...I kid...)

[Than_Bogan]

@RGilmore In your hypothetical example, each parameter can be selected independently, so the number of configurations is 6^6, which is over 45 thousand. :)

 

Obviously, this merely strengthens your core point!

[pregom]

@Horton could you please elaborate on what you think a senate lithium or pro-build (2020, I guess?) would give me vs my 2012 senate? I have the same 3 issues that you said both your nannies had. I also have a 2016 vapor lithium and recently I went back to my 2012 senate to see if it gives me more support. I'm finding the senate more sluggish but more "forgiving" of my bad habits, especially on the off-side cuts.

 

@BraceMaker suggests trying a butter knife (I have a few in my kitchen drawer, they seem small, but I'll give it a try :smile:) - what would be the rationale for the line of thought? more surface area? less stiffness?

[BraceMaker]

So the rationale is that in reality a senate if sized by their charts is a 32/34 mph ski.

 

So much of slalom is just like you said - break those bad habits and stand on the ski and you should make 15' 26mph easily - but that's pretty slow for a senate. So my suggestion is pick up what is a fairly inexpensive ski that is proper for going slow. The reality is the senate shouldn't be described as a sluggish ski. It is a fast ski if at the right speed/weight settings.

 

This goes back to your statement before and really the topic of the thread - are new skis better. To that I'll say 100% a butterknife, katana, EVO, Hovercraft etc. these are all way better skis than the Big Daddy, the Amigo etc. that existed 20+ years ago. Would I have told you to go buy an Obrien Amigo with a slider binding and try to run the course? Never - but would I tell you to go buy a butterknife or katana? 100%.

 

Would I suggest you buy a brand new 1800$ senate over your current senate? Yes but as a present when you get to 32MPH.

[Zman]

Better.

[pregom]

Makes sense, thanks @BraceMaker . My senate is 67” and I am 173-5, 6’1”. Some of my friends say that at a slow speed (and at my height) a 68” stick would be better - to your point of the charts geared to 32-34 mph skiing.

 

Slightly off topic, I realize, apologies in advance.

[Horton]

The new ski vs coaching argument is a false premise. If your ski is crap and your skills are ok then you need the ski first. If your ski is ok and your skills are crap then coaching is more important. If your ski is crap and your skills are crap you need both.

 

I have a lot of high school & college kids come through (My neighbors sometimes think I am running a ski school). Most of them are girls and beginner course skiers. All of them are on crap skis. Every time I put one of these skiers on a modern high spec ski they call home and beg for a new ski because they suddenly ski better. I have access to 66" Radar demos thanks to @ColeGiacopuzzi so a lot of kids are now on Radar Lithium Vapors.

[Horton]

@pregom Vapor vs Senate is a whole other subject but given the choice between a low spec version of one or a higher spec version of the other I would always push you to the higher spec ski.

 

Low spec skis give skiers options and that is great but if you are serious about skiing better the higher spec ski is important. The higher spec skis make more speed with less effort. Speed into the wakes is one of the fundamental keys to course skiing. A lower spec ski is going to require you to work harder and pull longer. Both of these things are going to make it harder for you to ski technically correct.

[The_MS]

Some skis just feel great to me

Monza

N1

 

[Horton]

@The_MS when was the last time you rode a Monza?

[The_MS]

2 years ago

[pregom]

Interesting perspective, @Horton. This morning I skied on my senate 15 off @ 28 mph. Let's just say it was not pretty. I think tomorrow I'll try my vapor again, @28 or possibly 26 mph.

[BraceMaker]

Why would you want to ski your narrower ski at a slower speed???

[Horton]

@BraceMaker

If it is a better ski...

[pregom]

@BraceMaker because I don't think I would stand a chance of doing anything good in the course at a faster speed? I'm trying to balance what you said with what Horton said before plunking money for some other ski (new or used). What follows should probably be in a separate thread. Last year I skied almost exclusively just in the course on weekends on my vapor at 28 mph and I was able to get around the 3 ball with some consistency and take a good look at the 4 ball. This year I've been free skiing at 32 mph on weekday and in the course on weekends at 26 and 28 mph, first on my vapor and lately on my senate. The results so far are worse than last year. Why did I switch to the senate? because I felt I've been making progress with my stance and technique while free skiing, but in the course I can't do almost anything right.

[MDB1056]

@pregom - you own good equipment . Senate and a Vapor. That you’re still having problems at 26-28 on both from my chair is clear indication you need someone to identify your fundamental errors, get you stable, so you can then work on improving. By your own admission left on your own it hasn’t been working. Get some basics identified, get on the Vapor and my bet is it will be a whole new world for you.

[BraceMaker]

@pregom this is a post by sam avaiusini of HO in regards to their Omega Max "Omega Max is narrower than an Omni and a Senate (which are close in width to each other). Currently the Omega Max concept is only planned as a 67" and is intended for those buoy chasers who might have otherwise chosen a 68" ski. The size offering may be expanded at a later date. Rough speed/weight ranges are:

32mph: 150 – 190lbs

34mph: 180 – 210lbs

36mph: 200 – 230lbs"

 

I post it because it has something we don't really often see published on a mfg website - weight ranges for slower speed. Some extrapolation however is that this ski for ever 2 mph the weight range is going down some 20-30 pounds, so by 26 mph how light would you need to be to ride a 67" ski - 120-130 lbs?

 

I think that is my main point - the only person I've seen do passes slowing the boat down using a competition style ski to very low speeds is @twhisper doing reverses

 

I'd love to see more open rated skiers attempt 26mph 15off on the ski they usually use and post video.

[pregom]

I get your point @BraceMaker, thanks. Another factor to consider is probably the kind of boat pulling you. I usually ski behind a 1997 MC Prostar or a similar vintage Gekko GTS. This morning I didn't switch back to my Vapor. I had a couple of decent (by my standards) sets on my Senate, minus a fall with a run-away ski that @"Keith Menard" documented in the other thread about skis climbing trees :smile:

[pregom]

In my first post replying to @BraceMaker I had not watched the video yet. I was just focused on the ski size chart by speed. Now I watched it - very impressive to see what @twhisper can do!

[BraceMaker]

Indeed indeed - but in watching what he can do - notice that he looks WAY different running a tournament ski slow than us mere mortals do and I think that's what I want you to grasp about your senate or vapor - to ski 15' at 26 MPH you have to take some lessons about what TW does and doesn't do on the ski. You will note he doesn't overload the ski or lean against the boat he sets direction and rides the path. And I think that's what I'm getting at - nothing says a guy who weighs 150 lbs can't buy a vapor pro a few sizes big for him and ride it slow with great success - but you can't be 200 lbs and buy a 67" senate pro and go 26 and expect performance.

[pregom]

I totally agree, @BraceMaker. This morning my Senate was ok, not sluggish. It’s what rides on top of the senate that needs to have a big tune up, especially for the offside cuts. I think I saw the light at the end of the tunnel. I hope it’s not an incoming train, as they say :smile:

[Dysco]

I love the concept and discussion. Technology... In 1988 Mike Kjellandrer skied 1@41 on i believe a Connelly HP(?).

Starting there, with that monumental accomplishment, how far could he have gone in 1988 with the same ski, but today's boots, fins and boat?

Second question how far could he have gone in1988 with today's top ski but yesterday's boat, fin and bindings?

 

I think that the bigger difference would come with the new boat,fin and bindings than the top skis of today with yesterday's accessories. I could be very wrong and would love to hear why.

 

This discussion is a reminder of Jesse Owens v Usain Bolt. Take away the track, starting blocks and shoe improvement of 80 years and they are almost equal. To a point, the person is the biggest ingredient. In our sport there will never be a Wayne Grimditch sized male on the podium again.